"Why You Should be Shooting RAW" - Story on wired.com

[manaheim]

Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.

If you want to take this private you can message me.

pfft. You don't need a camcorder. That's just a scam to sell you more equipment. All you really need to do is take pictures wicked fast using your SLR and then string them together to form a movie.

Anyone who uses a camcorder is really just failing to capture the images fast enough, and is honestly just leaning on a big crutch.

noob.

 

[asfixiate]

lol. anyhoo

I'm getting one to capture my nephew as well as when I have kids.

 

[ovjamaica]

just messaged you. click my name and chose send private message.

I tried, it's not there. I think I'm just too new. Don't have enough posts yet. I've worked with these boards before and there is usually a threshold of how many posts a new user has to have before they can use the PM system. Also, I didn't receive the message you sent, unfortunately.

I can gladly give you pointers, I just don't want to hijack the thread.

Oh, and manaheim's right. All of us videogs are just lazy photographers. Actually it IS rather fascinating to have so many similarities in not just the craft of getting a good image, but in the technology of DSLR's. Many of the same problems that are encountered with DSLR's are very prevalent in the digital video world, such as highlights blowing out, noise in the image, less dynamic range, etc. Even post processing techniques (levels, curves, etc) are extremely similar. It's definitely given my learning of digital photography a big boost. It always saddens me when I see photographers and videographers fighting over things when we really have much more in common that we have different.

 

[asfixiate]

I'm not a videographer and won't turn into that. I just want a decent camcorder to capture videos. Videography takes talent anyways.

I'm all photo though.

 

[ovjamaica]

Ok, I'll just make one recommendation and then tell you a few good things to look for. Personally I lean towards something like the Panasonic PV-GS320 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/477103-REG/Panasonic_PVGS320_PV_GS320_3_CCD_Mini.html)
because Panasonic makes great video gear and because this is an inexpensive but nice camera. Canon makes a few good ones too, but the difference is the number (and quality) of CCD's utilized in the cam. This Panasonic (and a few other models) use 3 CCD's instead of just 1. Each CCD is dedicated to its own color channel (RGB) so you get much better color in your image. It's also better in low light situations, less noise.

A few things to keep in mind. Most of the hard drive based camcorders are a total PAIN to edit with because they use convoluted codecs that aren't very standardized. I'd recommend either getting a tape-based camcorder (miniDV is the standard) that is digital, or getting a memory-card based one that records in AVCHD. That is becoming the standard for digital based consumer video and is much easier to edit. If you're not planning on editing ever and just want to see the video, buy a DVD-based camera. I really don't recommend those for quality but they are usually the simplest to use.

Also, the size of the CCD has a big impact on image quality. A lot of the HD camcorders in the consumer realm are using CMOS sensors, which is totally fine but they can get a bit noisy. Now before I get jumped there is absolutely nothing wrong with a CMOS sensor, but when you're talking about the world of digital video and the chip is less than 1/4" that gets noisy real fast in low light.

Anyway, those are a few tips. Let me know if you have more specific questions. And thanks for saying videography takes talent. I think both art forms (videography and photography) take quit a bit of talent and work and can be appreciated in their own ways.

 

[asfixiate]

This looks like the one I was messing with at best buy. Thanks for the lesson and recommendation.

 

[ovjamaica]

Anytime. I love to help.

 

[bahandi]

lol... this thread's been hijacked

 

[PhotoDonkey]

Considering the level of vitrol that seems to accompany the JPEG vs RAW debate, hijacking the thread might not be a bad thing.

 

[ovjamaica]

Just doing my part as a n00b. While at the same trying to up my post count to get out of noob status.

 

[Joves]

RAW VS Jpeg=

 

[MDesigner]

I'm a relative newb so pardon my contribution here, but I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file, whereas with the JPEG you would've needed to bracket. This makes HDR action shots possible.

 

[icassell]

Well, I shoot RAW, but then again, I had a darkroom when I shot 35mm. There is no question in my mind that JPG is more convenient, but I feel I have more control over the final image when I shoot RAW. It's a matter of what you want and what time you want to invest. We're all in this for different reasons. Hey, get the image compsition, lighting, exposure, etc. PERFECT at the time of exposure and it probably doesn't matter a hoot which you use.

 

[Garbz]

I'm a relative newb so pardon my contribution here, but I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file, whereas with the JPEG you would've needed to bracket. This makes HDR action shots possible.

What advantage? You can't create what doesn't exist. In this case the JPEGs will give the far superior result. After all a RAW file still only has the standard dynamic range of sensor unlike JPEGs which will have the High dynamic range of multiple shots. Multiple RAWs will be better of course to take advantage of 16bit processing, no extra dynamic range though.

 

[gizmo2071]

Multiple RAWs will be better of course to take advantage of 16bit processing, no extra dynamic range though.

This is my main reason to shoot Raw.
RAW files are 12bit files, JPEG's are 8bit.
My work flow is done in 16bit and saved as TIFF for printing. I've compared prints of the same image from the JPEG and TIFF files and there's enough visual quality difference for me to use the RAW/TIFF file.